Cram wrote on May 29, 2012, 16:22:A blue post, if to be believed, recently stated not one "hacked" account was one with an authenticator.

Actually, and this is a nitpick, they stated that not one "hacked" account they investigated was one with an authenticator. In other words, they have not yet verified that every case where an account has been hacked did not have an authenticator.

The dirty secret about the authenticators though is that the codes they generate are valid for a large enough period of time, that if a PC is actively compromised, someone could monitor the access codes being typed and have just enough time to login use the authenticator code just typed and clean a person's account out.

Yes, yes, if a PC is compromised, all bets are off, but still, the point is that an authenticator only significantly reduces the chance of a compromised account; it does not eliminate it. (Blizz is careful to point this out in their posts as well by subtly saying it's not a 100% guarantee.)

However, I think others here have a real point. Blizzard hasn't done enough to reduce hacking attempts. For example, if you regularly login from a cable modem connected up somewhere in California, and suddenly you're seen to be logging in from China, Kansas, or some other geographically unlikely location, ask the user to provide some extra information to verify the account before allowing access.

As far as I can tell, Blizzard doesn't do any of those things; they solely rely on users having an authenticator.

So yes, even those that don't have an authenticator should feel justified in saying that Blizzard isn't doing enough. They could do more; and they better do more before the launch the RMAH.

Dev wrote on May 29, 2012, 17:41:Anyway, there is a free authentication option, its the cell phone one. If you don't want to give your cell phone number, get a free google voice one.

No; the FAQ explicitly states that they are still evaluating support for Diablo III with the dial-in authentication option, it is not yet supported.

They only support it for World of Warcraft and general battle.net authentication. My guess is because it costs them real money for that service, which a WoW subscription would support, but a game like Diablo III will not.

RollinThundr wrote on May 24, 2012, 13:53:Wake me when they're done nerfing classes like it's an mmo and instead properly balance the difficulty levels, and also make legendary items not suck worse than regular magical ones. Terrible design decisions all around with this game.

The thing is, they made all kinds of changes to D2 over the years. And I'm sure we'll see the same thing here.

The difference is that here, the changes are even being made "server-side", and you have no choice as to whether you take the patches.

At least with the older games, if they made changes you didn't like, you could at least finish your single-player game before updating.

Now users that take longer to finish are going to finish a never-ending stream of tweaks to difficulty and gameplay before they even finish their first run through of the game.

Zanthar wrote on May 23, 2012, 15:33:I wonder how many fewer games would have been sold if D3 did not require a constant internet connection/DRM? How many copies would have been pirated by the unwashed and unemployed masses? 1 million copies? 2 million?

Just another example of the low-life scum bags of society making things difficult for the honest, hard-working, people of the world. I blame the filth, not the companies employing people and producing a product.

That's just me though, I wasn't born and raised with a sense of entitlement like most people these days.

Except, you do have a sense of entitlement; you appear to believe that a special group of people should work once and get paid for it the rest of their life.

You also appear to believe that developers are entitled to lock games down as much as possible to maximise their profits while still shipping products that are bug-ridden, violate their user's privacy, and have end-user agreements that require legal counsel to properly understand and strip away the most fundamental expectations of resale.

RollinThundr wrote on May 1, 2012, 15:33:lol I swear to god Blizzard fanboys are so fragile and easy to rattle. Actually he isn't wrong, Ray of frost is pretty much identical to the spell in torchlight visually.

Exactly

It even works the same, and the effects are pretty similar.

It's also almost just as overpowered as that spell was in the original torchlight. (They gimped it (rightfully) in a later patch.)

Hudson wrote on May 1, 2012, 15:20:Oh god another idiot extolling the virtues of some indie bullshit 20 dollar title and comparing the "open beta" to what he thinks is a quality title like Torchlight 2

Get a fucking clue you halfwit gamer. People like you, that think its "cool" to hate on what is obviously the biggest game release of the year, are fucking morons.

First of all, the "open beta" contains content and code that is clearly representative of what we'll see in the released game. (That's safe to say considering it's out in roughly two weeks from now.)

By your logic, Duke Nukem Forever when it debuted at $60 was way better than all the cheaper FPS games that had come out around the same time.

I get it, you like the game, good for you. But it's just a game. Seriously. It is hardly worth the vitriol you're spewing here.

I don't like the game; get over it. You want to fill Blizzard's pockets with money? Ok, do that. Pay your 15% at the door:

Verno wrote on May 1, 2012, 10:19:I don't know, Wizard didn't do it for me in beta. The signature spells felt really iffy and it probably didn't help that Ray of Frost and Disintegrate look like color swaps. Be interesting to see how the later spells flesh it out in retail. The videos of Hydra make it look fairly neutered compared to D2 but oh well.

Out of morbid curiosity, I played the open beta w/ the wizard. The ray of frost felt so much like I was playing the ember mage in Torchlight it was uncanny 8)

Diablo III -- no mods, online always, and I get to wait in a queue to login for a "single player" game. TL2 please save us!

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Apr 24, 2012, 15:56:Only dislike I have with the Witch Doctor is his lack of a more heroic physique. The Male WD has the distended belly of a starving man, along with the trembling shakes of an addict. In comparison, the 80 year old Barbarian has biceps that weigh more than the other characters combined... Blizzard really could have gone with a wide receiver type physique, or even a marathon runner physique if they wanted to stay ultra skinny and a more confident stance, but oh well.

Dhalsim-a-like perhaps?

I immediately thought of street fighter whenever I saw the Witch Doctor. I kept expecting his arms or legs to stretch out for physical attacks 8)

dumpy wrote on Apr 16, 2012, 21:00:Steam required Rage to patch 15 gig before I was able to play. I never used Steam very much in the past, but recently I've learned of their autopatch bs which screws my games like Skyrim and AVP2.

You can turn off autopatching for individual games by right clicking it in the library, selecting Properties, and then changing the option in the Updates tab.

You can also pause downloads manually at the downloads screen.

That only lasts for the current session and only until you next launch the game and exit.

Apparently Valve believes that no one should have the ability to permanently disable updates for a game.

I just think it's sad that companies continue their business by selling patched versions of their previous titles, rather developing new titles. Anything that is considered a patch, is considered free.

Projects like this are often a way for companies to generate enough sales to justify publishers being involved in further projects using the existing IP. Since this is a licensed property, a publisher has to be involved.

From that perspective, it makes perfect sense to "test the waters" with a relatively low-cost, low-risk project before producing more expensive, higher-risk content.